City Vs. Suburbs: Which is a Better Place for Renters?
There has been a longstanding debate on life in the city versus the suburbs and which one was the better option. While there is no "one-size-fits-all" when it comes to these things, let us take a look at the pros and cons of living in the city and in the suburbs and which one seems like a better option for renters.
As previously reported here on Realty Today, a lot of people are now opting to move to the suburbs because of its undeniable advantages over city living. Prices of homes in the suburbs are often lower than those in the cities and households also have the liberty of living in a spacious home when they live in the suburbs.
However, there are also certain downsides to living in the suburbs. One of the reasons why houses in the suburbs are often priced lower than those in the cities is because of their location. The majority of houses in the suburbs need longer hours of driving to get to and from the main city.
Trulia also created a thorough comparison on the prices of rents of homes situated in the city and those in the suburbs. For instance, at roughly the same price of rent in Atlanta, GA, one could go for a one-bedroom unit in the downtown area or one may opt for a three-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment in the suburbs.
In New York City where prices of rents are as high as monthly mortgage payments in other cities and states, a 446-square-foot apartment in Chelsea is priced at $3,510 per month. At $3,350 per month, one may get double the square footage in Jersey City, NJ.
In Seattle, WA, a 500-square-foot apartment located at the heart of Belltown is priced at $1,851 per month. Just add a couple of bucks to that and you can get a 1,050-square-foot home 25 minutes away from downtown Seattle.